Simpler than you think

There are so many points about being free of religion and attendant guilt that celebration is possible ever moment of every waking day, I do not know where to begin. Abolish fear by simply denying the existance of a judgemental condemning distant non-existant deity. If there was a deity of note, it would have no gender at all. But for an atheist, there is no point in speculating about this imaginary thing that I will not even label give a name.

Is it inconsistant to you that are reading this that as an atheist, I still take the principles and the ideas of astrology seriously? The reason that I have turned to the study of astrology is not to answer any questions about the meaning of life or need to understand free will as opposed to free choice, but grasping all of the deeper concepts that astrology holds begins to explain why people have a deep inate need to believe in something that is greater than themselves. I personally view people who bow and bend to an imagnary deity to be weaker and intellectually inferior. Belief in religion tends to warp the perceptions and causes levels of dysphoria, states of illusion that are close to mental disorders. Those caught in the frenzy of their own beliefs display all signs of disconnection from the real world, and can be labelled as experiencing a mental dsorder. There i no such thing as heaven or hell, no need for salvation. All those cookies, those carrots that they hold up as motivators are completely bogus, empty meaningless, without any substance whatsoever promises and sleight of hand.

Freedom of mind leads to freedom of spirit. There is much to reveal in order to free the minds and spirits of those who are enslaved by the school of liars especially in Roman Catholicism.
Christian denominations is that their leader, Jesus the Christ, was a devout Jew who followed Jewish ways of living observing the Laws of Moishe(Moses). If this man who in life was called Yeshua ben-Yosef, not Jesus the Christ, was a Jew, why does Roman Catholicism not follow the Jewish ways of doing thing?

There are answers to these questions but it is a good way of beginning to undermind the authority that Constantine perverted Christianity created.

It is not enough to question that bugaboo about a deity that is supposed to be omniscient, omnipotent, omni-loving, omni-present. Such fakeries that I was fed as a child by my well-intentioned parents and family. It is not enough to question that there is no such thing as hell or heaven, to show the weakness of this erroneous belief based on the fact that Jews themselves have never had dichotomy of heaven and hell nor the belief in salvation.

The base principles that the teacher Yeshua ben-Yosef (Jesus the Christ) taught about unconditional love are valid to this day. His principles of forgiving 7 times 70 times is a very good basis for living, But without judgement or condemnation.

Leaving you with these thoughts..

Ed Joseph

States of bliss and dysphoria are no stranger to me, however, I know the difference between these moments of disconnection and my real world.

I'm a little surprised how quickly you add a response whenever I post something. I think that I am flattered by the attention.

My statement about scientfic skepticism did not convey to you the accurate sentiment I was trying to express. The laws of physics are only realiable 85 to 95/98 % of the time. But to not be able to rely on the predictability of the laws of physics would place us in a strange universe.

I'm beginning to realise that we are coming from totaly different places. And although, I'm enjoying the banter, I'm kind of thinking that it is pointless since there has been nothing but animosity on your part.

Infrmation and knowledge are a really good thing. And I realise to what extent our knowledge bases are so completely different that there has not been one point of convergence not even the recognition that I am atheist in my appreciation of my experience of existence. Atheism is not essentially a place to be skeptical of every aspect of existence as we all experience it.

We do not share each others realities except for the artificial space of the cybernet in passing too. I cannot know what your experience of life is nor have you provided any clues. But that is inconsequential.

I had tried to post a comment to Leo that did not go through.

Leo, my friend, are you serious about learning everything from this blog? or are you yanking me around?

I'm a little surprised how quickly you add a response whenever I post something. I think that I am flattered by the attention.

No need to be. I just happen to visit this site more often than you.

My statement about scientfic skepticism did not convey to you the accurate sentiment I was trying to express. The laws of physics are only realiable 85 to 95/98 % of the time.

Really? Which laws are those? Are you suggesting that if I throw a ball in the air 100 times, there is a good chance that a few times it won't fall back to Earth? Or are you confusing quantum weirdness as support for odd claims in the macro world? I'd be interested to know where the laws o physics is only in effect 85% to 95%/98% of the time. If you could demonstrate that, you would win a Nobel.

I'm beginning to realise that we are coming from totaly different places. And although, I'm enjoying the banter, I'm kind of thinking that it is pointless since there has been nothing but animosity on your part.

We are definitely coming from two different places. If we weren't, then there wouldn't be much to discuss, now would there? But I think that I have been polite to you even if I find your ideas rubbish. You have made wild assertions and refuse to back them up. You say that I am intellectually lazy if I don't go out of my way to support your claims. And when I do take your advice to "Google" some of your claims, Google does not return any results that pertain to your claims. If anything, I should be the offended one. It seems quite common among the purveyors of woo and religion to take personal offense when their extraordinary claims are not taken as fact with no supporting evidence. Instead of coming up with something to substantiate the claims, they claim the other side is being mean to them. If your ideas can't take the heat, perhaps you should remove them from the kitchen? And to add, I do not feel bad for showing animosity towards your ideas. Many scientific ideas go through much worse on their way to being accepted. The difference is that science can produce evidence and stand up to such harsh criticism while woo-based claims have to rely on blind acceptance.

Atheism is not essentially a place to be skeptical of every aspect of existence as we all experience it.

I'm glad you brought that up, actually. It is true that atheism is not skepticism and does not require skepticism. But why be an atheist? To borrow from Matt Dillahunty, I'm an atheist because I want to know as many true things as I can and as little false things as possible. Most atheists are such because they do not believe theistic claims to be true. But some are more than happy to believe equally ridiculous things. So why is it okay to be a skeptic when it comes to religion, but not when it comes to astrology? This is the same double standard used by theists to hold up their religion as true over other religions they consider false. Scientific skepticism is the best tool available to get to know the real world. So, while you are free to subject critical thought to only things you disagree with and spare the beliefs you agree with from the harsh light of reason, this doesn't make you any better that theists in regards to your interpretation of reality.

We do not share each others realities except for the artificial space of the cybernet in passing too. I cannot know what your experience of life is nor have you provided any clues. But that is inconsequential.

You are right. It is inconsequential. Why should my experiences have anything to do with your claims? Does the veracity of your claims really depend on me? Either you have objective evidence or you do not. Subjective feelings of "oneness with the universe" counts for nothing when objectively evaluating claims.

What I find frustrating above all is when atheists claim some sort of woo and then get angry when other atheists challenge it. The personal offense and accusation of closed mindedness begin, typically, and all the while they miss the point that they are asking us to forsake our fundamental ideas and knowledge about the world in order to climb out on a precarious limb of fluff. If I told you that I was immortal and could read your mind, wouldn't you feel the need to challenge those claims? And if I refused to provide any evidence, wouldn't you then discontinue to take me seriously, if you even did to begin with?

Skepticism is not a bad thing. Discussing or exchanging with no a priories can lead to well total lack of communications.

My conclusion was that you were an atheist. My atheism is not dogmatic. perhaps somewhat free flowing nor do Iimpose it on others. My main position is to be able to say that I am atheist in my views in response to those who would deny that right. That is not the worst part, it is to be judged and condemned by those who claim with no justification whatsoever that if I do not change my views, then I am condemned tp an imaginary hell that cannot be proved to exist. Have I heard the voice of god? I never spell the word god with a capital unless refering to the Jewish one, then I spell it like this: G-d out of deference to Jews. I noticed that even atheists at this site do spell it with a capital.

I know that in some ways I am being lazy by not prviding you with reliable references: one, I am not writing a dissertation; two, many references are available on line. Some of my sources are old and even I have to research them again. Everything is at our disposal.

I do no feel the need to explain why I am atheist nor really defend it. The more important aspect is for anyone, notjust me, to be able to say that I am atheist without the baseless judgements of theists and deists who automatically assume that to be a good person one needs a mythical god to make that reality possible. The problem is with theists and deists who also automatically assme that we godless are immoral, incapable of doing the right thing, unable to show genuine care for others, the environment or animals; that we are to a one all criminals, reprbates or incaabl of loving commitmnet. To be human being is not a requirement to bow and bend to something nothing more than a mythic non-entity called a god.

What is the nature of belief that these people are actually so arrogant as to claim to know the very mind of this mythic monster. If something goes wrong in our lives, do we then blaim this non-existent thing rather than simply accept that this is fate or destiny or just the way things are. Good things happen to good people. Good things happen to people who have done bad things; bad things happen to good; and bad things do happen to people who have done bad things.

If in fact humans have created god, those responsible have created the most horrific thing possble when they linked that belief to a moralit code of do's and dont's. There are many people who have done the worst things possible and believe in that god thingy. Believing in a god of any kind does not make anyone a better person than another who does not suck up.

Why do people believe in god anyway, other than being indoctrinated to it from birth. Most people dont even realise that they can choose to reject this god myth and live freer; freer of fear, freer of guilt, and still be good people. Because I reject the unscientific belief in a mythic god, there are those, not you, who automatically consider I am a danger to society. You have no idea who I mean when I say those: not just Christians of all descriptions but Freemasons, Hermetic Order of Golden Dawn and Theosophists and many other esoterc groups whose name is legion.

I am genuinely interested to know if your approach in skeptical thought is inspired by such thinkers as Ludwig Wittgenstein, the German linguist cum philosophers whose episteological investigations were fuelled not only by his well considered expression but the discipline of phenomenology, the aalysis of the experience of perception? Much of what Wittgenstein developed was based on his linguitics base. And of course, Wittgenstein's postulations formed the basis for semiology and lead to many great thinkers whose names include Lacan, Derrida, De Sausure, de Foucault and authors like Samuel R. Delaney from the USA and the Italian Umbrto Eccco. There are the English semioticians whose names were never a big part of my studies.

How does your skepticism serve you, if it does at all? Maybe that is not the point after all.

Proofs and arguments for god are the silliest ever. We need only look at the teleological argument for god. Using the analogy of a watch. If there is a watch, there has to be a watchmaker. The universe is, therefore there has to be a creator of the universe? Where is this creator? In the universe outside of it? How can there be any kind of creator of something as complex as our universe? My position is that the universe is nothing more than an accident of chance. Joseph Campbell, the modern mythologist, intimated as much.

Why do I continue to respond? Why not. You have presented original thinking and insired me to exercise my brain in ways that have not been stimulated for some time. It is important for me to execise the grey matter beyond my work activity which tends to be manual not requiring much deep thinking.

What I find frustrating above all is when atheists claim some sort of woo Curious what is woo?

If I have shown any anger with respect to your challenges, then please indicate where and how?

"If I have shown any anger with respect to your challenges, then please indicate where and how?"

No, I think the conversation is civil and even some anger can enter a discussion and not make it uncivil. Thus far I do not have any objections to your presentation other than a few major quibbles that I will spell out as I respond to some of your words.

"Curious what is woo?"

"woo-woo

Woo-woo (or just plain woo) refers to ideas considered irrational or based on extremely flimsy evidence or that appeal to mysterious occult forces or powers."

"Skepticism is not a bad thing. Discussing or exchanging with no a priories can lead to well total lack of communications."

This is an argument of first principals. Of course, if we started from scratch in each generation, we would never be able to build on all the work before. No different than in a conversation if we had to redefine a word each time we use it. In fact, words and language is a compromise to overcome this sort of thing. It is ambiguous and imperfect, but works well enough that we can communicate complex ideas with simple words. Being a skeptic is not being a skeptic to that sort of pedantic degree. There is a balance and it is a fine line to walk in some cases.

"My conclusion was that you were an atheist. My atheism is not dogmatic. perhaps somewhat free flowing nor do Iimpose it on others. My main position is to be able to say that I am atheist in my views in response to those who would deny that right."

I am an atheist but that doesn't really say anything about me other than I do not subscribe to theistic beliefs. I am not dogmatic in this belief because if a god or God appeared and was able to show that he is indeed a god, then I would believe in a god and no longer be an atheist. I may not worship him, but I would believe that this deity existed. The evidence would have to meet a rather high bar, though, to rule out something they may be appearing as a god, i.e., mental illness on my part, an alien from a super advanced civilization, etc.

I had the feeling that you were using your atheism as a local anesthetic to inject something that may normally be resisted. If I am in error in this, then I apologize for the assumption. I do not expect you to defend your atheism and I agree with much on what you have to say on religion or atheism.

"I know that in some ways I am being lazy by not prviding you with reliable references: one, I am not writing a dissertation; two, many references are available on line."

I am not writing a dissertation, either, but I have been kind enough to provide some links when relevant. Your excuse that your sources are old and no longer available is feeble considering you tell me that simply by using Google, I may find a world of information regarding these subjects. In fact, I did that very thing and could find nothing to support your claims.

The problem I find is that claims are made with no supporting evidence. It's not that I am dogmatically against astrology. It is because it has shown to fail anytime it is put to the test and there is nothing in science that is reputable that gives any credence to such a thing. I have read enough from trusted sources on this topic. If there is something that will disprove these sources, then I would gladly take a look. But until then, these sources have done enough work that I don't feel the need to pursue it with no justification such as compelling evidence. It's the very same reason why scientists are not spending their days looking for Russell's teapot.

"I am genuinely interested to know if your approach in skeptical thought is inspired by such thinkers as Ludwig Wittgenstein."

My approach to skeptical thought is inspired by my desire to know the truth even if it does not agree with my wants or desires. I have always been a skeptic, although it is a skill that must be practiced and honed to be used effectively. The modern skeptical movement and my love for science has helped me develop these skills. I can't point to a single source other than my internal drive for truth.

"How does your skepticism serve you, if it does at all? Maybe that is not the point after all."

It serves me daily. I spent a lot of time researching claims during the recent U.S. presidential election, taking nothing at face value while all around me believed almost any email they received. I started out debunking claims by co-workers and friends and by the time the election was drawing close, these co-workers and friends were coming to me as a trusted source for information. This is not to toot my own horn, but it was a lot of work sifting through all the noise to chase down reliable and accurate information. Most people do not have that desire to spend so much time to find out if some gun law is going to be passed that will open their home to Federal inspections, which is not true, btw.

It serves me in my job. In personal relationships. It serves me well in many, many ways. It doesn't always make me happy, but it does give me reliable information in order to make better decisions. I don't always make the best decisions, but I do at least have the information. And sometimes I set this valuable tool aside in order to feed my biases. It is not intentional, but it easy to let this guard down and not realize it. The hardest part of being a skeptic is probably that very thing, battling your own biases.

"Why do I continue to respond? Why not. You have presented original thinking and insired me to exercise my brain in ways that have not been stimulated for some time. It is important for me to execise the grey matter beyond my work activity which tends to be manual not requiring much deep thinking."

Well, the posts are lengthy, but I don't mind a healthy debate. It is hard, though, when the debate topic seems to move around. If we can nail down a single thing and debate the veracity of that before dismissing it and moving to something else, I would find that more constructive. If you decide to continue, that is.

" I never spell the word god with a capital unless refering to the Jewish one, then I spell it like this: G-d out of deference to Jews. I noticed that even atheists at this site do spell it with a capital."

I notice some people make an effort to use god or God or G-d. I don't really think it matters. I may use God with capital G when talking of the Abrahamic god, but not out of deference. It is simply to signal that I am talking about this particular deity. I don't feel the need to show deference to Jews any more than I do to Christians or any other religious group. I'll use the word anyway I think I need to and there is not a good enough reason to go out of my way to care about it. And I am not always consistent in the way I type out "god". It is not that important to most of my points.

I did not expect this to be so much a debate as a discussion. I never said that my sources no longer exist, only that they would be difficult to source out since I do not have access to the same data bases anymore.

As I've stated many times I have no need to convince you about astrology. Belief creates its own reality if that helps in any way.

Why should I abandon my blog-post since I started it. At the beginning there were more than one respondant. Now there is just you.

One thing that is finally becoming clear is that you do not appear to have had a formal scholarly training in terms of philosophical base. Mentioning all of those names was my way of sussing out just where you are there. Your sketicism is rational just plain good thinking. I'm Canadian, and I have never believed anything that has come out of Washington especially when it is under Republican dominance.

While the Bush Jr administration was trying to sell to America that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and it had to be invaded, never believed it from the beginning. On the front pages o nwspapers was this famous piece of manipulation of mass conciousness and paranoia to which many fell prey, deeper buried in the paper were reports of Hans Blix, the official UN appointed nuclear arms inspector and his team having complete and free access to all o Iraq's military installations stating emphatically and repeatedly that THERE ARE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN IRAQ. I had to point that out to many of my fellow Canadians who were also caught in the glare of the headlights of dissembling and mass manipulation of this evil US administration. I was skeptical at the age of twelve reading the transcripts of the court case after the JFKennedy assassination and concluded on my own that we would never know who had shot and killed Kennedy. Anybody who still believes that it was Lee Harvey Oswald, well, go ahead then. There were two shooters. Bullets do not zigzag like that in my universe. At the age of twelve my skepticism determined that.

One thing that you stated has actually shocked me:

"I am not dogmatic in this belief because if a gd or God appeared and was able to show that he is indeed a god, then I would believe in a god and no longer be an atheist. I may not worship him, but I would believe that this deity existed. The evidence would have to meet a rather high bar, though, to rule out something they may be appearing as a god, i.e., mental illness on my part, an alien from a super advanced civilization, etc."

I had never taken this position nor can I even consider it. There is no skepticism on my part with respect to a deity thing. It won't happen or it would have happned to me already. You have no idea how many people have tried to save in the last few years. It has become unrelenting.

I mention Freemasons and other secret, secretive societies without as much as a boo from you.
You do know that more than half of US presidents have been high ranking Freemasons beginning with George Washington up to and including GB Sr & Jr were also initiates and practitioners of the many levels of circles of initiation among their ranks. GB Jr beonged to the Skull and Bones. Have you uncovered that or do you not think it matters? On the back of the greenback there is an image of an Egyptian pyramid with an eye at the top. If you know Egyptian mythology then you know the meaning of the all seeing eye of Ossiris as well as understanding why it is on the back of the USD. Many people know that this is a symbol adapted and used by the US branch of Freemasons.

If you want tounderstand astrology, no one can teach you the many principles involves in one sitting. It is complex and has many formulae for reading the birth chart aspects that despcribe a person eve physically. Race and cultural influences are sometimes factors that have to be conidered for an accurate reading of a chart. That is the only way to understand astrology, is to study it, not the pseudo-science based disclaimers. I call the pseudo-science because as much as astroloy is a science it delves in the metaphysical.

However to us astrologers that metaphysical energy becomes tangible as we look at the placement of the astrals.

To grasp astrology youwol have to learn the Twelve Signs/Constellations/Houses of the Zodiac Wheel. The twelve contellations of the Zodiac can be verified using astronomy. There are many more than twelve Constellations in the Heavens but the principle ones that atrology uses are only twelve. In the unscientific approach of astrology, as the Sun progresses from being in the influence of one contellation after another, people who are born with their Sun in a specific constellation, can will and do display certain characteristics associated with eac of the Houses/Constellations/Signs.

You would then have to understand what each of these twelve signs meant in their placement. In many ways you have to learn a completely new language and symbols. Also astrology needs a very strong knowldge of mythology.

Do I display the characteristics of not only my Sun sign but my whole birth chart? Yes, yes I do definitely. I am exactly as my birth chart describes me. Strong in my many convictions, convinced that wrong must be righted. It goes much deeper than that. When the first astrologer I consulted who had no prior knowedge of me, drew up my correct chart and went through the whole thing, house by house with the placement of the planets in relation to the house and house sign (see it's all garble di goop to you right now), he descibed me almost one hundred percent to a t. The one part that he got wrong or overlooked was that I had had a stable caring home life that had naturally prepared me to turn around some less desirable influences in my chart. I even had to explain that to him. Before this meeting with this astrologer, I had tried to teach myself astrology. After reading many books on astrology including the debunkers and informing myself about the methods used to try to discredit debunk astrology, I still did not know the signficance of or how to cast a chart until this meeting. With the help of books, I can provide a fairly accurate interpretation of a birth chart provided that all coordinates are accurate and not fudged.

As for the name of the physicist whose observations about the energies created when the planets or astrals are in specific alignment, I only learned of him recently and did not record it. I'm not motivated at this time to search for it because it would not prove anything to you except to prove that there was a scientist who was able to make these observtions using instruments designed to measure energy levels. He merely made these observations. It is up to each person to decide for themselves if that is a source to support some aspect of astrology or not.

If you had an appreciation for semiological approach you might connect with the idea that the way that the way that a word is presented god small g or capital g, the capital G god is about capitalism. Invest in this or that belief system and you are promised eternal life, the golden apple, saved from a non-existant hell. Support your local temple, and church buildings are nothing more than temples, by tithing. Support your local pastor, priest, mullah, monk, what have you. Why, can't they get a real job and learn to invest, and support themselves like most can and do?

I do not think that atheists should organise and seek tax-free status like all religious organisations. Doing that simply emulates this monstrous practice. Rather, what atheists should be doing is organising to remove tax-free status for all religion based temples. Charitable organisations need to remain tax free if they are to achieve what they do. But, those who tithe also need to pay tithe to the state. All religions should pay taxes. That's what I advocate.

When atheists have a Sunday morning homeletics about how to get tax-free status for organised atheism, that bothers me. I can't be bothered to waste my time dealing what to me is a non-issue.

What I am truly afraid of is the institution of theocratic dictates in a secular state setting. Ireland, part of the British dominion, is considering passing into full law an anti-blasphemy law that would punish by fine and imprisonment anyone who is disrespectful or derogatory towards those who hold particular beliefs. If this is not the beginning of the end of free speech as we enjoy it, what is? Comedians on stage could be charged with blasphemy if someone in the audience chose to complain and deemed the material offensive. To avoid these kinds of stupidities would it be then necessary to make verbal disclaimers before a comic's routine. It is irrational and absurd.

You reflect my use of the spelling of the word for god almost completely. But that you allow for the possibility of an entity of godlike dimensions to make itself known to you by some manner is just baffling to me still.

I don't know what to say especially with regard with what appears to me to be an obsession with the proofs or non-proofs of astrology.

There have been many attempts to save me through conversion to some religion or other. It may sound paranoid to say it that way but strange events that are difficult to quantify or qualify in a hyper-rationalist format have manifested themselves.

I did not expect this to be so much a debate as a discussion. I never said that my sources no longer exist, only that they would be difficult to source out since I do not have access to the same data bases anymore.

But, you keep saying everything can be found on Google. That is, until I look for it. The it isn't. That is moving the goalpost.

One thing that is finally becoming clear is that you do not appear to have had a formal scholarly training in terms of philosophical base. Mentioning all of those names was my way of sussing out just where you are there. Your sketicism is rational just plain good thinking.

Google University? I've come across philosophy majors that could recite names and philosophies ad nauseum, yet could not think there way out of a wet paper bag. Philosophy students do not always equal philosophers.

But if I care about credentials over argument, then shall I just come out and ask where you experienced your "scholarly" training?

One thing that you stated has actually shocked me:

"I am not dogmatic in this belief because if a gd or God appeared and was able to show that he is indeed a god, then I would believe in a god and no longer be an atheist. I may not worship him, but I would believe that this deity existed. The evidence would have to meet a rather high bar, though, to rule out something they may be appearing as a god, i.e., mental illness on my part, an alien from a super advanced civilization, etc."

I had never taken this position nor can I even consider it. There is no skepticism on my part with respect to a deity thing. It won't happen or it would have happned to me already. You have no idea how many people have tried to save in the last few years. It has become unrelenting.

Then you are dogmatic in your atheism which contradicts your explicit statement that you were not. If there appeared definitive evidence for a god or God, you would continue to deny it's existence? In science, you follow the evidence no matter where it leads. Dogmatic belief ignores evidence and is the foundation of evolution denial by creationists.

I mention Freemasons and other secret, secretive societies without as much as a boo from you.

Another creationist tactic is to throw out so many "facts", that the other side can not possibly find the time to thoroughly go through them all and set the story straight. You certainly have been throwing a lot at me and I have been ignoring the diversionary points as best I can, but nonetheless I have been diverted from your original points which you seem to be happy to have abandoned. Furthermore, I will ignore any and all scientific claims that can not be provided with sources or at least information enough that can be easily researched and confirmed. No more mystery physicists and vague experiments.

However to us astrologers that metaphysical energy becomes tangible as we look at the placement of the astrals.

Yeah? Care to explain?

But that you allow for the possibility of an entity of godlike dimensions to make itself known to you by some manner is just baffling to me still.

For a more precise explanation, if through the scientific method I could determine the existence of a god or God, then I would accept it. As with all claims, the more extraordinary they are, the more extraordinary the evidence would need to be. If proper thresholds were met, I would accept the existence of a deity. That is how science works.

I don't know what to say especially with regard with what appears to me to be an obsession with the proofs or non-proofs of astrology.

WRONG! Not proofs. Science doesn't deal with proofs except in mathematics. Evidence, my friend. My obsession is with evidence and with good reason.

Everything else you posted seemed either a diversion or was off topic and so I chose to ignore it for brevity and clarity.

Your logic is a conundrum.to me. My logic is that since no scientific process has ever been found to clearly and undeniably prove the existence for a deity, the probability of it happening any tm soon or in the future. The laws of probability are not on your side. I don't think that you even understand how the laws of probability really work. Your claim that my atheism is dogmatc because I do not entertain the probablility of deity revealing itself undeniably with scientific proof. Again your definition of dogmatism is way in out there.

Even geneticists are seaching for a god gene in our DNA.

My position this and it is not oiginal because my position is based on the 17th century Dutch Jewish philosopher, mystic and kabbalist astrologer, Baruch Spinoza who said after a great deal of preamble: "God and the Universe are one."

You can create a simple formula for this

god = universe - this statement is true or false

god + universe = one - this statement is true or false

Is faith required in order for these statements to be true or false?

If this statement is true, I require no scientific proof for the existence of god. All I have to do is open my eyes and look at the it before me. I look at images of deep space taken by the Hubble telescope and see the evolution of the universe, it does cause me to be in wonder.
Anyway, applying semiological deconstruction of you text makes me very suspicious of your identity. Your sentence structures and wordngs are beginning to resemble mine and I wonder why that is? There are even dropped letters like mine. There are dropped letters in my because keyboard stcks, the keys do not respond properly.

If we have to count points, you did try to toot your horn about the US adminstration manipulation of information concerning Iraq. I bested you there. I also bested you about the Kennedy assassination but that is easy. I am older than you.

You ask me for my credentials and do not bother presenting yours.

Are you suggesting that you have not found references to semiotics, to Ludwig Wittgenstein. It is obvious that you have no concept what semiology is. I venture to say that you have not google or tried to find any references on line. You've never heard of these men so they probably do not exist. A figment of my imagination.

I know that Wikipedia has entries for all of these. If you have not even tried Wiki for some links you are really lazy.

Look up "Mystery Cult of Mithras the Bull-slayer". If you tell me there is nothing at Wiki on this subject, you are lying or just being lazy in not researching it or someone is blocking you from accessing this information.

I am in my sixth decade of life. If I was twelve in 1965 then you know what year I was born andyou can fiure out howol I am. I graduated in 1977 from a prominent Canadian university with a Bachelo of Arts degree in Religious Studies. The first year that this degree was offered at my university. I have two undeclared minors, four philosophies and four psychologies, seven courses in my major including theology, moral theology, when I only needed five courses to declare my major. Two years of biblical Hebrew, and Music 101 and several other courses. I then enrolled at anoher Canadian university this time in the Fine Arts department to become a full-fledged artist. I completed three years of study in this life long passion. It was from 1979 to 1983. It was the best period for semiology because it was at its height.

Your sketicism has allowed your brain t fall out and you do not realise it.

I do intmidate you. And I am playing with your mind gleefully because you are letting me do it. I inimidate you because Iam probably more inteligent than you, I certainly have a much ;larger field of reference than you. To try to catch up on all of these subjects would take some time. So much easier to deny that they exist than google search and find them.

You are not taking the time to absorb or understand fully what I say. We all have blinders of some kind or other for some reason or other. I have yet to figure out my own.

I will provide more details about my scholarly training when you start providing some of yours.

Your logic is a conundrum.to me. My logic is that since no scientific process has ever been found to clearly and undeniably prove the existence for a deity,

You may be confused because you do not seem to understand what I am saying. It's as simple as you saying you would remain an atheist despite evidence of the existence of a god. That is dogmatic. I didn't say that science would or even could find such evidence, but if it did, then I would consider it. Take for example the power of prayer. If prayer were shown through scientifically rigorous testing to actually work (aside from the placebo effect), this would be compelling evidence. Since there is no evidence for the efficacy of prayer or anything else god like, I am an atheist. But, IF there were... Does that make sense to you now? I thought I laid it out simply enough for even a non-scientific mind to grasp.

Even geneticists are seaching for a god gene in our DNA.

They are? Which geneticists? And why does that matter? People are looking for Bigfoot, too. It actually sounds like you are pulling this from poorly named headlines from science articles. Editors love to make connections like that to grab the readers attention. Ben Goldacre of Bad Science is constantly bemoaning the poor quality of science writing in the media. It seems that you may have fallen victim to it.

God and the Universe are one

Yeah, sure. Pantheism is all well and fine, but what is your point? That there are many definitions of god? Fine. I agree with that. Not sure why you bring poor old Spinoza into this.

Your sentence structures and wordngs are beginning to resemble mine and I wonder why that is?

Well, I am copying and pasting your words and italicizing them to quote you. If whole sentences are in italics and standing alone on the page, then that is me quoting you. I thought this would be painfully obvious, but I am not sure I should make these assumptions about what you understand and what you don't anymore.

If that is not what you mean, then I have no clue what you are talking about. My typos are simply that. Typos. I am not spending a great deal of effort to edit and revise what I type and there is no edit function once I hit "add comment".

If we have to count points, you did try to toot your horn about the US adminstration manipulation of information concerning Iraq. I bested you there. I also bested you about the Kennedy assassination but that is easy. I am older than you.

Yeah, well, my dad can beat up your dad. And Kennedy? Iraq? When did we discuss that at any length? I guess you won whatever imaginary debate you were having, but I didn't really see this as a pissing contest> Now I know you do, though.

You ask me for my credentials and do not bother presenting yours

Am I in Bizarro world? You have this fascination with "scholarly work" and carry on about your doubts about my "scholarly research". I'm not that interested in credentials. You were. So I thought I'd give you a chance to brag. I know most of what I need to know about you from this extended conversation. Your credentials would be irrelevant at this point.

Are you suggesting that you have not found references to semiotics, to Ludwig Wittgenstein. It is obvious that you have no concept what semiology is. I venture to say that you have not google or tried to find any references on line. You've never heard of these men so they probably do not exist. A figment of my imagination.

No. You suggested that. I simply answered your question that I did not directly take my cues from Wittgenstein. You added in the rest about figments of imagination. Most likely I learned from people inspired by him in some way. And I did study some semiology. In order to pass my drivers license exam at 16, I had to study and identify street signs. That counts, right?

I know that Wikipedia has entries for all of these. If you have not even tried Wiki for some links you are really lazy.

Yeah, okay. So Google and Wikipedia. They are great sources of information. I'm not that lazy, but I just am not going to do your research for you. You are a purveyor of woo who makes claims and then when challenged, you task your challengers with the burden of proving your points. Then you question their logic. I think I have entered Bizarro World. I can look up stuff all day and it will not make astrology true. You claim evidence is out there if only I look. Well, I have no reason to look because it is crap and I know it. If you have something compelling to change my mind, I'll look at it. But you have to bring it to me, not point in a vague direction and say "somewhere over there". And most of what you want me to look up doesn't even pertain to your original claims. It's silly and you know it. Or maybe you don't? There I go assuming the best of you.

Look up "Mystery Cult of Mithras the Bull-slayer". If you tell me there is nothing at Wiki on this subject, you are lying or just being lazy in not researching it or someone is blocking you from accessing this information.

No. You look it up. I looked up some things as you suggested and Google returned nothing that had anything to do with what you were talking about. Go back, read what it was, and Google search it yourself if you think I am lying. Do that first and then maybe I'll entertain another try. If you find something, please link to it. It's not that hard and you wouldn't want anyone to think you were lazy, now would you?

I am in my sixth decade of life. If I was twelve in 1965 then you know what year I was born andyou can fiure out howol I am. I graduated in 1977 from a prominent Canadian university with a Bachelo of Arts degree in Religious Studies. The first year that this degree was offered at my university. I have two undeclared minors, four philosophies and four psychologies, seven courses in my major including theology, moral theology, when I only needed five courses to declare my major. Two years of biblical Hebrew, and Music 101 and several other courses. I then enrolled at anoher Canadian university this time in the Fine Arts department to become a full-fledged artist. I completed three years of study in this life long passion. It was from 1979 to 1983. It was the best period for semiology because it was at its height.

And none of that is evidence of astrology being anything other than crap.

Your sketicism has allowed your brain t fall out and you do not realise it.

That is always possible. It is also possible that senility is getting best of you in your advanced age. Perhaps we should explore that as well?

I do intmidate you. And I am playing with your mind gleefully because you are letting me do it. I inimidate you because Iam probably more inteligent than you,

I am not intimidated. Where would you get that idea? But why should either of us be intimidated? I certainly am not trying to scare you. I just don't agree with you. And you may very well be more intelligent than me. However, you are intellectually dishonest and you take the easy path of running from your challenges and accusing others of laziness. I know of many people who are more intelligent than me. This does not make them right all the time. This does not make them good thinkers. In fact, many are religious and some fall prey to things like astrology. However, your intelligence is very irrelevant to the conversation regarding the veracity of your claims on astrology. But surely you already knew that, didn't you?

I am happy that you are having such a grand time, though. You are right that I am letting you play around. I have let you stray from your initial claims and make new ones. Once challenged there, you strayed again to find something else. I did let you. I am sure some people who may be watching my continued discussion with you are wondering why I keep at it. I know that you are a troll, of sorts. I knew we were not having an honest discussion, the dishonesty coming from your end. But I considered it some good sport to debate and challenge someone like you. I have read a lot by skeptics and scientists who have debunked and debated theologians and woo-masters alike. I knew what I should expect and you did not disappoint. Perhaps the next time someone like you stumbles along I'll try a different tactic that won't accommodate meandering arguments and excuses, in other words "goal post moving". I have a feeling I know how that will turn out, too, but I consider it all in good fun.

Have you tried "Googling" reasons why astrology is false? You should. Unless you are lazy and less intelligent than me.